 I think they're right in principle, which was if you have a government of limited powers, there's no need for a Bill of Rights. All it's going to do is cause problems, and it's going to cause interpretive problems with the Supreme Court. Of course, they're absolutely right about that. But Madison, this is a great example of prudence, right? Well, in order to get the Constitution ratified, which is the objective here, we need to add a Bill of Rights. And so what does Madison do? It's not merely that he decides to support a Bill of Rights.